[Mouse]

It's all about trying to find a balance between the obligation of society to support/fund those who are unemployed and the degree to which it may choose to withdraw it's funding when an individual refuses to accept a job that society claims the individual is fit to perform.

This comes into conflict when an individual's personal beliefs or moral code conflict with the system. For example, would the same system insist that a vegan work in a slaughterhouse?

If the system is so utterly inflexible that it cannot adjust to such instances, then it should be reformed. If however, it makes adjustments to cope with such situations, then it can be seen as a dynamic situation that can adapt and change.

However, should a mutually satisfactory resolution prove impossible, then inevitably the state's determination will prevail. Though unfortunate for some, it should still benefit the majority.

No social security system I've ever come across in the real world is perfect. What it must strive to do is limit the impact of it's imperfections for the benefit of the majority.